Date of Filing: 15.09.2016 Date of Final Order: 17.08.2017
Smt. Runa Ganguly, President in-charge
The case of the Complainant Mr. Bidyut Modak is that on 03.09.2015 he purchased a Micromax Mobile, Model No. X290 on payment of Rs.1800/- from Baisakhi Mobile Centre, Dinhata. The said set bears an warranty of one year from the date of purchase the said set. On and from 16.05.2016 some problem cropped up in the set for this the Complainant unable to use the set. Facing the said problem the Complainant contacted with the retailer and he was suggested to contact with the Service Centre. Then the Complainant rushed towards Service Centre, “Mahamaya Enterprise” within the warranty period to sort out the problem of the Hand Set and handed over the set to the Service Centre on 21.05.2016. The Opposite Party assured to return the set after repair within fifteen days. Further, the Complainant contacted several times with the Opposite Party to get return his Mobile Hand Set but failed. On 22.08.2016 the O.P. No. 1 informed the Complainant that the Set in question has been returned by the O.P. Company without repair. The main allegation of the Complainant is that the O.P did not repair the defects in the mobile set even after having warranty period on the alleged set. Finding no other alternative, he has filed the present case praying for relief and compensation as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
It appears from the CR that the O.P. No.2 the Company in this case did not appear despite receiving the notice.
Now, let us discuss the written version of the O.P. No.1 dated 21.04.2017, wherein it has been stated that the case is not maintainable, Complainant has no right to file the case, no cause of action arose, mis-joinder/non-joinder of necessary parties etc. as a matter of denial of the entitlement of claims of the complainant and denying/ admitting the matters on record.
The contention of the O.P. is that the petitioner purchased a mobile hand set on 03.09.2015 from a retailer at Dinhata and after a long time use of the set, the Complainant brought the set to the O.P complaining “Power not getting on”. The O.P. instantly received the same on 16.06.2016 without battery. The O.P. with consent of the Complainant sent the set to the Company at Kolkata. The Kolkata Company sent the said set to the Delhi Company and after repairing the same the Company delivered the same to the answering O.P. on 19.09.2016. During this period the O.P. came to know that the Complainant has filed a complaint before this Forum.
This answering O.P. No.1 further contended that for malafide intention & harassment, the Complainant has brought such false, wild, baseless allegations against this O.P. as because after using a considerable period, the Complainant brought the set to the Opposite Party, Service Centre only for squeezing money. The other contention of the Opposite Party is that, after receiving the complaint from the Complainant this O.P. took initiative and provided actual service for which it has no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant is a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the Opposite Parties any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISSION WITH REASONS
In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives. Perused the Evidence of the Complainant and Evidence, W/Ar. of the O.P. No. 1 also documents filed by both the parties.
The record is taken up for hearing of argument. The contesting O.P. No. 1 is absent without taking any step on the date fixed for argument also no W/Ar. is filed by the O.P. No.1. We heard the argument of the Complainant in absence of the O.P. No. 1 for ends of justice.
Point No.1.
Evidently, the Complainant purchased a Micromax Mobile, Model No.290 on payment of Rs. 1800/- from the Baisakhi Mobile at Dinhata. The O.P. No.1, Mahamaya Enterprise is the service centre of Micromax mobile and the O.P. No.2, the manufacturer of the mobile set in question.
So, relation between the complainant and the O.P. No.1 & 2 so established from the records we are convinced to hold that the Complainant is the consumer of the Opposite parties.
Point No.2.
O.P. No.1, Mahamaya Enterprise has service centre at Cooch Behar town.
Valuation of the case is far less than the prescribed limit of Rs.20,00,000/-.
So, this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try the case.
Point No.3 & 4.
From the discussion herein before, we transparently find that the Complainant purchased the mobile set from the Baisakhi Mobile at Dinhata who has not been made party in this case. The Ld. Agent for the O.P. No. 1 vehemently argued that this case is bad for non- joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties.
Fact is that, the mobile hand set of the Complainant was received by the O.P. No.1 being the Service Centre of the Company. The O.P. received the said hand set and issued a JOB CARD in favour of the Complainant on 21.05.2016 and it appears that the O.P. No. 1 provided service within the warranty period as per its limit.
We do not find any documents as to the warranty of the said hand set but it is fact that the dispute cropped up within the warranty period and as such the Complainant is entitled to get proper service from the service provider.
We also perused the evidence on affidavit of the Complainant which speaks that the Complainant handed over the disputed mobile hand set to the Opposite Party No.1 intended to return back the set in working condition but all are in vain. Besides, the O.P.1 contended that the set was sent to the Company and after returning from the Company this O.P. handed over the set to the Complainant for which it has no deficiency in service. It appears from the record that the Complainant received the hand set from the O.P. on 02.03.2017. during the pendency of this case. Thereafter the Complainant on 22.06.2017 informed this Forum that the said set again started problem but the O.P. denied to receive the set for further servicing.
From the discussion made herein before, we find that the problem in the mobile hand set cropped up within the warranty period and as per version of the O.P. the set in question was ready to deliver on and from 19.09.2016 and files documents in support of his contention. The O.P. No. 1 received the summon of this Forum on 08.10.2016 but appeared before this Forum on 02.03 2017 after elapsing statutory period and after vacating ex-parte order he intended to return the set to the Complainant. Thus, it is crystal clear that the O.P. No.1 kept the set in his custody so many months the reason best known to the O.P. No.1. The O.P. No. 1 also failed to give any satisfactory explanation in this regard. Besides the O.P. No. 2 did not repair the set properly. Thus, deficiency in service of the O.Ps cannot be ruled out. As and when the problem cropped up within the warranty period the consumer has every right to go service centre to avail proper service.
In the light of the discussion made here in before we do find that the Complainant on 02.03.2017 received the set from the O.P. after servicing. The O.P. No. 1 rendered service but it was not up to the mark for which the problem started again. Fact is that, the Complainant failed to use the set without any interruption. Thus, the Complainant is entitle to get relief for his harassment mental pain etc. We do not find any reason to pass an order for making payment the price of the mobile hand set as and when the Complainant received the set on 02.03.2017 with full satisfaction but did not disclose the total fact in his Evidence on affidavit.
Be that as it may, on foregoing discussion, circumstances to the case, together with the attitude and thoughts of the parties in litigation we are in considered opinion that this complaint is deserve to be allowed but in part.
ORDER
Hence, it is Ordered,
That the complaint is allowed in part on contest against O.P. No. 1 with cost of Rs.2000/- and in Ex-parte against the O.P. No. 2 with cost of Rs.2,000/-. The O.P. No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for mental pain and harassment of the Complainant. The O.Ps are hereby directed to comply with the order within 30 days failure of which the O.Ps. shall have to pay @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay by depositing the accrued amount if any in this regard, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
Dictated and corrected by me.
